Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 54 (4).

437-452 (2001)

YAHYAPA~A-OGLU MEHMED PASHA'S EVKAF

IN BELGRADE

ALEKSANDAR FOTIe'"

(Belgrade)

It was to Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pasha, sancakbeyi of Semendire (\527--1534, 1536-1543,

1548 -1550?) and paa of Buda (1543 -1548), that Ottoman Belgrade owed the erection of one of
the biggest and most versatile vakifs, which strongly affected the growth of the city's new urban
structure. Mehmed Pasha's evkaf in Belgrade consisted of a mosque, a mekteb, a medrese, an
'imaret, a karvansaray, a sebil, a ~eme, and Mehmed Pasha's tiirbe (mausoleum), all constituting
a well-structured architectural complex. Beyond the complex, it also included a musalla, a tekke,
and shops and lots in the market place. By 1548 most of the structures had already been built, and
they lasted till 1688. The state assisted in providing for the evkafby granting Mehmed Pasha the
full ownership (miilk) of a large number of vacant lots in the city, a few nearby villages, and subse
quently, some estates in the sancak of Pozega. The study of the composition and functioning of
Mehmed Pasha's Belgrade evkaf indeed confirms the assumptions about a well thought out state
policy as regards the development of the urban structure of major Ottoman communities.
Key words: Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pasha, Vakif (Endowment), Belgrade, Ottoman Empire,
16th-17th centuries.

Urban communities were the backbone of the Ottoman state, especially in the Bal
kans where Christians made up the majority of the population. They provided a firm
foothold of the military, executive and judicial authorities, with a potentially great
communicational, economic, and ideological significance. The vakzj was undoubt
edly the institution decisively affecting the development of Muslim urban communi
ties. Scholars have long been aware that the growth of the towns and cities for the
most part was not spontaneous or dependent merely upon the initiative and wealth of
individuals eager to secure a lasting memory in both worlds. Research into the origin
of the urban structure of some towns and cities, and analyses of their intended growth

Aleksandar Fotic, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of History, Cika Ljubina 18-20,

Belgrade, SerbialYugoslavia; Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts,
Knez Mihajlova 35, Belgrade, SerbialYugoslavia, e-mail (work);balkinst@eunet.yu .
0001-64461200[/ $ 5.00 2001 Akademiai Kiad6,

Budape.~t

438

A, Font

testify to the long-term and thought-out policy of the Ottoman state, implemented in
l
the name of the Sultan.
In the newly conquered or newly founded urban communities it was often the
Sultan himself who set the example by laying down the cornerstone of the first
mosque, thereby instigating the foundation of vakljs. He would sometimes order that
vakifs be built on specific places thereby founding kasabas. And the most frequent
way of rewarding his high officials was to grant them full ownership (miilk) of a con
siderable income, which as a rule entailed the endowment of that property for the
purpose of sustaining their foundations. As most of the state (Sultan's) revenue was
secured in this way and as the state subsequently took care of the functioning of the
endowments and appointment of their staff, it is no wonder that such policy may mis
lead one to identify the activity of high officeholders with the will of the state, and
even to regard their evkafs as being state institutions. 2
The developed medieval cities, such as Belgrade, began to change after the
conquest so as to fit into a new, Oriental, urban civilisation. Although Belgrade for
mally became part of that sphere in 1521, the bases for its Oriental urban structure
were laid down only several decades later, towards the middle of the century. Its par
ticular strategic position (vital fortress), communicational importance (Istanbul yoJu,
the Danube) and economic potentials created the conditions for its fast state-for
warded growth into a big Ottoman :jehir. The continuity of its development was first
interrupted by the destruction of war in 1688?
The Sultans' endowments put aside, the biggest evkajs were founded by the
Smederevo/Semendire sancakbeyis and Viziers: in the 16th century - by the Grand
Viziers Piri Mehmed Pasha and Sokollu Mebmed Pasha, Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed
Pasha, and Bayram bey; and in the 17th - by Musa Pasha, beylerbeyi of Buda, and
the Grand Vizier KopriiHi-zade Fazil Ahmed Pasha.
As one of the earliest, biggest, and most varied evkafs, those that became part
of every aspect of day-to-day city life, Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pasha's evkaf influ
enced significantly the development of Belgrade's new urban structure.
Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pasha (previously bey) is also referred to in docu
ments as: Yahyah Mehmed Pasha and Yahyapa~a-zade Gazi Mehmed Pasha; and in
a letter King Janos Szapolyai wrote in the Serbian language in 1537 - as Mehmed
Beg Jahjapasic. He came from an illustrious family of militaries who, through several
generations, successfully led Ottoman elite units in the battles decisive for the expan
sion of the Ottoman Empire on the European soil. The first Islamised member of this
family and its patriarch, Yahya Pasha, the son of 'Abd ul-Hay, won the glory in the
field of battle as early as the age of Mehmed Fatih. He was the sancakbeyi of Bosnia
(1480), repeatedly the beylerbeyi of Anadolu and Rumeli, and, finally, the Vizier and
son-in-law of the Sultan Bayezid II. His successes, military rather than those in statesI Handzic (1975, pp. 133-168); Handzic (1983, pp. 113-120); Fotic (1992, pp. 149-159);
Kunt (1994, pp. 189-198). There are many other works dealing to some extent with these issues.
2 Kunt (1994, pp, 189--190); Barkan-Ayverdi (1970, pp, XVI-XIX).
3 For that period, see: Sabanovic (1970, pp. 5-40); [storija Beograda (1974, pp. 323-461);
Djuric-Zamolo (1977) to be used with caution.

Acla Orient, Hung. 54. 2001

~~---------------

YAHYAPA$A-oGLU MEHMED PASHA'S EVKAF IN BELGRADE

439

manship, paved the way for other legendary uc-families (border families), such as the
already famous Evrenos-oglu, Malko~-oglu, Mihal-oglu and others. He died in 1509
leaving seven sons behind, the most prominent being Bali bey and Mehmed bey (Pa
sha). He had a big evkafbuilt in SkopjelOskup. Historiography has recently refuted
the assertion linking Yahya Pasha's sons with the imperial branch of his wife
4
Hatice. The oldest son, Bali bey, called Ku~uk Bali bey by Ottoman chroniclers,
started his career as a za'im in Bosnia (1485). He took part in the 1498 campaign
against Poland, led by Bali bey Malko~-oglu. Besides his short stature, one of the
reasons for his nickname - Ku~uk (Short, but also Younger) - may have been the
wish to differentiate more easily between the two namesakes. It is only in 1506 that
he is first referred to as the sancakbeyi (of Valona). As the sancakbeyi of Semendire
(1513-1515; 1517-1518; 1521-1523; 1524-1527) he grew into the famed leader of
the gazi warriors in the European border zones. He was also head of the sancaks
of iskenderiye (l519?-1521), Bosnia (1521), and Vidin (1524). The highlights of his
military career were the defence of Havale in 1515, his prominent role during the
conquest of Belgrade in 1521, and the battle at Moha~ in 1526. He died sometime
between February and April 1527, and was buried near Semendire, in a tiirbe by the
Danube (existing until the late 19th century). Neither his tremendous military accom
plishments nor the marriage with a princess (Bayezid II's grand-daughter) could en
sure him the title of pa$a. His immoderation, arrogance, perhaps even villainy, may
have been the reason, as testified by his contemporaries and numerous complaints
lodged with the Porte. Those he did some harm, not so few, used to ascribe the same
nature to the entire Yahyah family. After his father's death, Bali bey took over the
duty of the miitevelli of his evkaf in Skopje. He founded some endowments himself:
in Semendire (a zaviye consisting of a mescid, an 'imaret, and a tekke); in Pozare
vac/Pojaref~e (mescid); in Sarajevo (a mosque, two hamams, a bridge, and a foun
tain); and in the kasaba of Cerven/<;:emovi, sancak of Nikopol. For the sustainment
of his Semendire evkafhe bequeathed the income from Pozarevac and the surround
ing villages he had been given as a miilk. When the vakifs in the sancak of Semendire
were deprived of their lands in 1741, the only exception were the vakiflands of So
kollu Mehmed Pasha and Bali bey.5
4Silreyya (1308-1311, Vol. IV, p. 632); Elezovic (1937, pp. 161-178); Elezovic (1940,
pp. 367,384-411,420526); Bojanic (1985, pp. 49-77).
5 In the abovequoted and exceedingly important paper by D. Bojanic, full of precious infor
mation, all the knowledge gained so far ha<; been summed up and many open questions of Bali
bey's biography successfully solved, and his activity as the founder of endowments has also been
elucidated. Before her work appeared, a special problem was the confusion between Yahyapa~a
oglu Bali bey and Bali bey, a relative ofYahya Pasha's, also often called Kil9ilk so as to be distin
guished from his older namesake and relative (Ku(uk Bali hi$-i Yahya Pasha). This other Bali bey
became the beylerbeyi of Buda (1542--1543), with the title of pa$a. He began as a za'im in the
sancaks of Trikala (1514) and Semen dire (1514--1516), where he found himself under the wing of
his relative. He ran his career as the sancakbeyi ofPrizren (1526-1527), Zvomik (1528-1530),
Alacahisar (?) and Hersek (1537-1541), just before his appointment to the post of the pa$a of Bud a
(Bojanic 1985, pp. 62-63). The name of his father is also known: Harnza (Romer 1989, p. 24). Bali
Pasha had several sons: Dervi~ bey (timar-holder in the sancak of Zvomik 1528-1530; the sancak
beyi ofSzeged (1544) and Pel,!uylPecs; the builder of the mosque and other buildings in Yagodine);
Acta Orient. Hung. 54, 2001

440

A. FOTIe

Belgrade owed most to Mehmed beylPasha, Bali bey's younger brother and
his successor as the sancakbeyi of Semendire. Although Yahya Pasha's other sons
will not be discussed on this occasion, it should be borne in mind that some of them
were high officials themselves. In his father's vakifname of 1506 Mehmed is signed
as <;elebi, which means he was not yet responsible for any duty. The date of his first
appointment as a sancakbeyi is not known, but it probably was rather early owing to
his father's influence, to his already famous brother, but also to his own indubitable
abilities. The earliest information comes from the year 1517, when he is referred to
as the sancakbeyi of Malatya. With Sultan Suleyman's ascension to the throne, he
became the first sancakbeyi of the newly founded sancak of Mosul. After Bali bey
had been transferred to Semendire, Mehmed bey became the sancakbeyi of Vidin
(1524-1527). Thus the two brothers, in two neighbouring sancaks, controlled most
of the Danubian border zone (serhadd). After his brother's death, sometime between
February and April 1527, he was appointed the sancakbeyi of Semendire, with the
annual income of 500,000 akt:;es, almost half that of Bali bey's. He retained the
position until the beginning of 1534. The area of his jurisdiction at the time com
prised Sirem and then expanded to embrace the newly conquered regions of Sla
vonia. Early in 1528 he took part in the siege of Jajce!Yay~a in Bosnia, and he also
took part in almost every major battle north of Belgrade. Leading the avant-garde of
the Ottoman army against Vienna in 1529, he distinguished himself in the battles at
YamklGyor, Gyula, and PozsonylBratislava. With his akmcls, he penetrated as far as
Regensburg and Brunn. In keeping with an agreement between the Sultan Slileyrnan
and Janos Szapolyai, Mehmed bey helped the latter by taking BecejlBecse and
BeckereklBecskerek. He also showed excellence in fulfilling peacetime tasks. He had
deserted Sirem repopulated by the people from the interior of the sancak of Semen
dire, thereby satisfying the basic prerequisite for the full implementation of Ottoman
power. He was rather successful in winning the Serbs over for the martolos and river
flotilla (~ayka) units, and at the time they played an important role in the Hungarian
army. The operation of recapturing Koron was a new trial, and in order to accomplish
the task he was reassigned as the sancakbeyi of Morea at the beginning of 1534. He
completed it successfully and, with new changes, was transferred back at the head of
the sancak of Semendire early in 1536. On that occasion he became the serdar of the
whole serhadd. His achievements were crowned by the successful defence of
OseklEszek and, in continuation of that action, by the great victory over the Christian
army at Goryan in 1537. After the battIe, Janos Szapolyai sent his congratulations in
Serbian addressing him as: "The famous and able master of the Serbian land, sancak
of Semendire; the master of Belgrade, Danube, Sirem, and Sava, and of other more
border cities." In 1538 he took part in the pacification of Moldavia. From November
1540, as serdar over some ten border sancaks, he helped the defence of besieged
Buda. This success won him the title of pa~a and the promotion to the position of the
beylerbeyi of Anatolia. He was appointed beylerbeyi of Buda in May 1543, whicq
Ahmed (timar-holder in Zvornik 1528-1530; za'im in Semen dire 1543/1544); Mahmud (za 'i~
in the nahiye ofNi~ 1543/1544); and Mehmed (timar-holder in Semendire 1544) (Bojanic 1981
pp.62-63).
Acta Orient. Hung. 54. 200}

\;;.

YAHYAPASl\.OGLU MEHMED PASHA'S EVKAF IN BELGRADE

441

position he kept until January 1548. As the pa$a of Buda, he distinguished himself in
the 1544 conquest of Visegrad, Novigrad/N6grad, Hatvan, and Simontomya. Ac
cording to a newly found source, he does not seem to have died as the beylerbeyi of
Buda, but as the sancakbeyi of Semendire, between January 1548 and April 1550.
The relocation may be explained by his serious illness, or weakness, having in mind
his age. It is self-evident that he could have been nursed best in his Belgrade evkaf
He was buried in a tiirbe within his endowment. 6
Mehmed Pasha enjoyed high incomes from his hasses, f;iftliks, and other pos
sessions throughout the beylerbeyilik of Buda, in the sancaks of Buda, Sirem, Se
mendire, Pozega/Pozsega, in the Transdanubian border areas where sancaks were not
formed, and probably in some other areas on which we have no data.? He bequeathed
a large part of his private property to the sustenance of his evkaf His major endow
ments were built in Belgrade. As far as it is known, in addition to an evkaj in Bel
grade, he had a mescid built in Valjevo (sancak of Semendire), round which in Octo
ber 1536 a quarter (mahalle) bearing his name grew up. He left a trace in Buda as
well. He had the spa of Buda renovated and some konaks (guest houses) added. While
in power, he built a tekke and a tiirbe on the grave of a famous $eyh of Bekta~i order,
Gill Baba. 8

*
While he was the sancakbeyi of Semendire, Yahyah Mehmed announced his inten
tion to build a large endowment in Belgrade. His design was backed by the state and,
between 1528/30 and 1536, the Sultan Siileyman gave him as a miilk (full ownership)
a number of lots in the city of Belgrade, some villages in the nahiye of Belgrade
(MirijevolMiriyeva, Gomje Slance/Gome islanye and Donje SlancelDolne islanye),
and some on the other side of the Danube: Ovca/Ofya and BorcaIBorya, subsequently
to be included in the nahiye of Pancevo/Panyova, sancak of Temesvar. The villages
constituted a round whole bordering on the sinors of Belgrade city to the north and
east. The date is unknown of the formation of the Belgrade endowment from the
mUlk property, nor has Mehmed Pasha's vakifname been found yet, but it is known
that most buildings had been constructed by about 1548. After the conquest of Sla
vonia in 1537, Mehmed bey was rewarded again. He was given as a miilk several
estates disseminated across the sancak of Pozega and some vacant lots in the town of

6 Elezovic (1940, pp. 480-484); Perevi Tarihi (1968-1969, Vol. I, pp. 23-24, 76, 86-87,
109-111,133,138,143-144); Siireyya (1308-1311, Vol. IV, p. 113); Kunt (1983, facsimile 109,
the translation contains an error on p. 105); Sabanovic (1964, p. 648); Stojanovic (1929-1934, Vol.
I, T. 2, pp. 484-485); Fodor (2000, p. 142); Barta (1994, pp. 104-105, 107, 116-117, 122); David
(2000, p. 275): Fotic (1991a, p. 106): Mehmed Pasha's tiirbe.
7 David (1992, pp. 388, 394); /storija naroda Jugos/avije (1960, Vol. II, p. 181); Cviko
(1982-1983, pp. 275, 278); Cviko (1984, pp. 132,134).
s Fotic (1992, pp. 149-159); Bojanic (1985, p. 65); Elezovic (1940, pp. 484); Fekete (1955,
pp. 1-18); Fekete (1976, p. 94).

4t-.<l~ ~ 711 . ''I f'I!.tI

y~-r I

11'-'

r:. r~'r -

~""~

"I

C"

1~,I'AiUl.
JI.

Acta Orient. Hung. 54. 2001

l'A . . . .

;y~",./

442

A. FOTIe

Pozega, where he had some shops built. The incomes from the sancak of Pozega
were also intended for sustaining his Belgrade endowment. 9
Mehmed Pasha's evkaf in Belgrade consisted of a mosque, a mekteb, a med
rese, an 'imaret (soup-kitchen), a karvansaray, a sebil (public fountain), a r;e$me
(a drinking fountain) and of his tiirbe (mausoleum), all constituting a well-formed ar
chitectural complex, while beyond that whole, there were also a musalla (namazgah,
open public place for prayer), a tekke (dervish lodge), and shops and lots in the mar
ket place. Later on, in the 17th century, the evkaf management also purchased the
large C;ukur han. The evkaf complex occupied the space presently bounded by the
streets Cara Du~ana, Dubrovacka, Skender-begova and Knicaninova. The quarter be
came known as the 'imaret mahallesi. The principal buildings were the 'imaret, which
lent the name to the entire vak!f Cimaret vakji), the mosque Cimaret cami'i), the
medrese (Medrese-i 'imaret), and the karvansaray (called 'imaret han).'o
Yahyah Gazi Mehmed Pasha's mosque falls among those the most often writ
ten about. Partly because of a somewhat more generous description by Evliya <;elebi,
and partly because, renovated and under two names - the old one: 'imaret cami'i,
and the similar name of another viiklf (Yahya Pasha Hatib-zade) it existed from
1739 until the I 870s, and thus was remembered by the elderly citizens of Belgrade.
Evliya <;elebi says it was built from booty. In the mid-17th century the construction
date (955, Le. 1548/49) was still legible in the inscription above the entrance. Evliya
stressed that it was much frequented and described it as "the pride of the $ehir of Bel
grade". The central dome was not built of solid materials, but all of the four lateral
domes, the vestibule and the side porches were covered with lead. Under the mihrab
of the mosque was buried, in May 1656, 'Abdurrahim Efendi, mufti of Belgrade, the
great Ottoman scholar and former $eyh iii-islam. II
It has only recently been found out that Mehmed Pasha was buried in Bel
grade, next to his endowments. It is interesting that not even Evliya <;elebi makes
any mention of his tiirbe. All doubts about the issue have, however, been removed by
an 'arz that the miitevelli Ahmed addressed to the Porte in 1687. He requested that
a berat be issued for a new cuzhan (Kuran reader) in the "mausoleum of the late
endowment founder" (viiklf-i merhumun turbesinde).12
Among the structures built for religious purposes, there were also a musalla
and a tekke. It has long been known that the Muslims of Belgrade had the advantage

9 Sabanovic (1964, pp. 70, 239-240, 395-397, 529-533); BBA, TD 290, p. 288 (I am
grateful to Dr. Olga Zirojevic for the data from this defter); Halasi-Kun (1987, pp. 108-109, Ill,
125-127); Cviko (1982-1983, pp. 275, 278); Cviko (199 I?); Fotic (1992, pp. 150-151,155-156).
10 Sabanovic (1970, pp. 15,29-32); Fotic (l991b, pp. 60-72); Fotic (l99Ia, pp. 10411 0);
Fotic (1992, pp. 151-153). Certain buildings of Mehmed Pasha's evkafhave already been dis
cussed, but the analyses are mostly based on the long-known sources (Evliya C;:elebi) and contain
numerous mistakes and incorrect assumptions.
II Ev/iya (:elebi (1315, Vol. V, p. 377); BBA, Cevdet, Evkaf, 4.555,13.616,31.881; BBA,
ibn ii1-Emin, Evkaf, 4.292, 4.664; Veselinovic (1955, pp. 99-106); Nikic (1958, pp. 173 -176);
Djuric-Zamolo (1977, pp. 33-36); Trickovic (1973, pp. 63, 77-78).
12 BBA, Ali Emiri, IV. Mehmed, 4.207; Fotic (1991a, p. 106).

Acta Orient. Hung. 54. 2001

'"

YAHY APASA-oGLU MEHMED PASHA'S EVKAF IN BELGRADE

443

of having for their prayers in the summertime on Fridays and holidays an enclosed
open area called the musalla. It is depicted in every known plan of Belgrade, and
Evliya <;elebi also makes mention of it. However, it has only recently been estab
lished that it was Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pasha to be given the credit for its con
struction. 13 Outside the complex of Mehmed Pasha's evkafthere was also the dervi:j
Mehmed Horasani's tekke, as testified by Evliya <;elebi. The convincing assumption
that it belonged to the Bekta~i dervi:j order is questioned by the fodlla defter of Meh
med Pasha's 'imaret, where just one tekke is referred to: the Hindi tekkesi. The refer
ence in a fodita (bread) defter does not necessarily mean that that was the dervi:j
lodge built by Mehmed Pasha himself; however, as there is no other information,
such possibility should not be ruled out readily. 14
Concern for education was one of religious duties. It was a responsibility of
the mekteb l5 and medrese. Yahyah Mehmed Pasha's excellent reputation must have
been one of the reasons the medrese he founded was ranked as high (50 a~es) as a
medrese outside Istanbul and not built by the imperial family could get. In some
16th-century sources, Mehmed Pasha's medrese is referred to under the name of
Mehmed's son Arslan Pasha (Medrese-i Arslan Pasha der Be/grad). This should not
throw us into any confusion. Arslan Pasha was an illustrious person and he ran his
father' s vak~r for nearly twenty years. It is no wonder then that this medrese some
times was, though inaccurately, associated with his name. There was only one 50
akge medrese in Belgrade, the famous 'jmaret medresesi, or Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed
Pasha's medrese. It was attended by 40 students and 12-13 dani:jmends (higher level
students). Its muderrises were the second highest members of the Belgrade 'ulema
after mol/as. Their importance was still greater because they concurrently were the
muftis of Belgrade. The reference to the following muderrises has survived: mevlana
Mehmed (1580-?); Mahmud Efendi (?-1584); Fazlullah Efendi (1604/1605-?);
Nurullah ibrahim, the son of iskender, much better known under his literary pseudo
nym Muniri Belgradi (?-1617?); FazIl Miifetti~ Siileyman (1648-1652); and Ka
pudan-zade Timur Efendi (1656-1660). About the appointment of Fazlullah Efendi
a certain Ahmed <;elebi from Tuzla composed a tarih (chronogram). To judge by a
verse, the medrese had been closed "for quite some time" before this appointment.
Muniri Belgradi was one of those well-known teachers and scholars who considera
bly influenced the cultural life of the Muslim population of Belgrade. He was a ver
satile man: in addition to his works of religious and literary character, he was the
author of a writing, yet unfound, on ancient geography, and in 1615 he made a copy
of a universal world history and added his own observations. There is no doubt that
the activity of copying was fostered in Belgrade. Although only four of some thirty
currently known works contain notes referring to Mehmed Pasha's medrese, it is

J3
14

BBA, ibn ii1-Emin, Ensab, 262; Fotic (199Ia, pp. 104-105).

Evl~ya (:elebi (1315, Vol. V, p. 378): (it reads in fact: "banisi 'Abali Mehmed Pa~adlr",

which H. Sabanovic has correctly taken as an erratum assuming that there should be "Yahyah"
instead of "'Abali", see: Evlija Celebi (1967, p. 87); Fotic (199Ib, pp. 59-64, 71).
15 Fotic (199Ib, pp. 60-64); BBA, Ali Emiri, IV. Mehmed, 4.117.
Acta Orient, Hung 54, 2QOI

444

A. FOTIC

reasonable to assume that most of them stemmed from the cultural circle that was
formed round the most influential schooL '6
Although the 'imare! undoubtedly is the most famous institution within Meh
med Pasha's evkaf, very little is known about it. In the 'imaret meals were prepared
for the stipendiary and dependents of the vakif (murtezika), and for karvansaray
guests. The term miirtezika did not include only the vakif staff, but also the students
of the medrese, all those who in one way or another contributed to the vakif, their
families, and a number of the city poor. According to two known defiers recording
the allotment ofJodzla (a sort of small flat bread the weight of which was specified in
the vakifname and commonly was 100 dirhems, i.e. 320 g), in 1660 the 'imaret's
daily output was about 180 Jodzlas, both "big" and "small", intended for some 120
persons. The muderris and two imams were entitled to the biggest apportionment: 4
big double Jodl/as each. Of the total number of persons receiving their share almost a
half were the students and dani$mends (40+ 12). It is interesting that the city poor
were allotted only 6 big double Jodilas a day, a surprisingly small quantity consider
ing the important social function of a public kitchen ('imaret). In the expenditures of
Mehmed Pasha's evkaf, that on food and other kitchen necessities was the largest:
66,000 ak;pes a year, or about 43% of the total expenses (not including the staffs
salaries).'
Mehmed Pasha's karvansaray, shops and lots, and subsequently his <;ukur
han as well, contributed considerably to the economic development of Belgrade.
They all were located along the Main, or Long, shopping avenue (Uzun <;ar$u), the
business and commercial artery of Ottoman Belgrade. Moreover, the buildings of the
'imaret vakfi took part in its formation. To judge by the annual income in 1572, the
evkaJmay have held up to 70 shops on this attractive location.'s
The karvansaray, also called the 'imaret han, belonged among the evkafs lu
crative possessions. It must be an overstatement when Evliya <;elebi says that a trav
eller could take a one-month stay free of charge, his only obligation being to pray
regularly for the benefactor's soul. In most karvansarays, provided that the charter of
endowment (valifryye) specified it at all, free accommodation was limited to three
days. The evkaJ management used to rent out (mukata 'a) the karvansaray. In the
second half of the 16th century, that brought them a safe and high annual income of
45,000 akc;es, more than a third of the total Belgrade income. The lease (mukata 'a)
16 Ev/iya C;elebi (1315, Vol. V, p. 377-378, 381, 384); Sabanovic (1970, pp. 29~30); Dju
ric-Zamolo (1977, pp. 108-109); Trickovic (1974, pp. 253 -254): so far the best documented pres
entation of this medrese, with clarifications concerning the use of the name Arslan Pasha; Qzergin
(1974, pp. 268, 281); Baltacl (1976, pp. 155-156,504,581): according to BBA, K. Kepeci, Ruus
Kalemi, 238, p. 163, calls it Arslan Pasha's medrese; Ugur (1985, pp. 315-316); Fotic (1991 b, pp.
60-64,69, 72); Fotic (1992, pp. 152-156); Zdralovic (1988, Vol. I, pp. 133, Vol. II, 29, 34, 39,
41-42,46,52,56,58,60,63,68,71-72, 74-75,77, 79,95, 114,334). On Muniri Belgradi, see:
Sabanovic (1973, pp. 193~20 I); Tahir (1972, Vol. II, pp. 25-26); Zdralovic (1988, Vol. Il, pp. 29,
.
39); Claxer (1994, p. 56).
7 Fotic (l991b, pp. 57~73); Fotic (1992, pp. 152-156); Nationalbibliothek, Wien, Mxt 158,
photo 25 Ucmal defteri ofthe sancak of Semendire from 1572).
18 Fotic (1992, p. 156).

Acra Orient. Hung. 54, 2001

'0\

YAHY APA~A-OGLU MEHMED PASHA'S EVKAF IN BELGRADE

445

specified that the maintenance and repair costs, not at all an insignificant amount of
money, were to be met by the vakif 19
The C;ukur han almost certainly does not belong among the structures listed in
Mehmed Pasha's vakjiyye. It was built or purchased long after the evkaf had been
founded, perhaps only in the 17th century. The earliest reference to it is to be found
in Evliya <;elebi (1660), while the first and the only reliable information of its be
longing to the evkaffalls only in the year 1674: the mutevelli prolonged the lease to
Huseyn odaba~l by another three years and for no less than 240,000 akr;es to be paid
in rentals of 20,000 akr;es a quarter. In those years the C;ukur han brought 80,000
akr;:es a year. There is indirect information about its size from the period of Austrian
occupation: from 1728 (7 magazas, 25 kitchens [shops?] and 47 rooms), and from
1739, when it was taken over by the newly founded vakif of klZlar atasl Hacl Be~ir
Agha (13 magazas, 20 shops in the basement and 58 rooms upstairs)?
Yahyah Mehmed Pasha intended the duty of the mutevelli of his endowment
for his descendants. After his death in 1548, it was his son Arslan bey who gained the
right of tevliyet. Just like his father before him, he actually controlled all of the three
large family endowments (his grandfather's in SkopjeiOskup, his uncle's in Pozare
vac, and his father's in Belgrade). Arslan Pasha's sons, Yahya and Ahmed, were not
of age when their father died in 1566, which means they were not eligible for the duty
of mutevelli. Exactly ten years later, in 1576, Yahya came of age, but it gave him
much trouble to realise his right, at least as regards the vakif in Pozarevac. Until the
mutevelli from the family came of age, the endowments were managed by the freed
slaves of the Y ahyapa~a-zade family. The same rule was applied to the other vakifs.
The duty of mutevelli was hereditary on both male and female sides. It appears that
for a while the position, perhaps in female line, was held by Kat;:amkh Mehmed
Pasha (died ca. 1608), as it seems the son of Koca Sinan Pasha (not of Arslan Pasha,
as suggested by some evidence), and much later, in the second half of the 17th cen
tury, by the Vizier Kethiida Ahmed Pasha, also known as Sarho~ Ahmed Pasha (died
in 1691). Unfortunately, there is not enough room here to deal with the line of mute
vellis in more detaiI. 21
As the mutevellis often resided outside Belgrade, they appointed their depu
ties: kaimmakams, also called vekil-i mutevellis, na 'ib-i mutevellis, or miitevelli agas.
In order to stimulate active participation in the realisation of the vakifs income, they
used to lease out that duty (iltizam i/e). Such practice, however, opened innumerable
possibilities of abuse. Kaimmakams tended to embezzle the vakifs money or to cause
19 Evliya Celebi (1315, Vol. V, p. 379); Nationalbibliothek, Wien, Mxt 158, photo 24;
Sabanovic (1970, pp. 33); Fotic (1992, pp. 152-153, 156).
20 Evliya Celeb; (1315, Vol. V, p. 379); BUB, MS. 3574,41; Fotic (I991a, pp. 105-106);
Popovic (1935, p. 240); Trickovic (1973, p. 71).
2l Romer (1994, pp. 297-298). On Arslan bey, subsequently pa/ja, there is a multitude of
scattered data, but his biography has never been written; Bojanic (1985, pp. 65-66, 73-74); BBA,
Cevdet, Evkaf, 11.712; BBA, Ali Emiri, IV. Mehmed, 4.113, 4.187. 4.207,11.105; BUB, MS.
3574,102,188; Sureyya (1308-1311, Vol. I, p. 226; Vol. IV, p. 139); Elezovic (1937, p. 177);
Kalesi-Mehmedovski (1958, pp. 5-8); Silahdar(1928, Vol. I, p. 664; Vol. II, pp. 16,24,61,76,
95,100,141-142,169, 170, 183,217,223,226,248,266,450-252).

Acta Orient. Hung. 54, 2001

446

A. FOTiC

..............

"'.

Map I. Land possessions

ofYahyapa~a-oglu

Mehmed Pasha's Belgrade evkaf

other sorts of damage, and they mistreated the inhabitants of the evkafvillages. Com
plaints about such behaviour even reached the Porte, for instance in 1646 and 1686.22
The total number of the vakif staff can only be established approximately. The
abovementioned fodlla defiers, completed with other sources, permit us to identifY
22 Sabanovic (1964, p. 440); BUB, MS. 3574,23,30,35,41,51,64,67,77,92, 138, 150;
BBA, tbn iil-Emin, Evkaf, 7.616; BBA, Ali Emiri, IV. Mehmed, 4.116,4.118,4.187, 11.105;
Miihimme Defied 90 (1993, No. 28).

Acta Orient. Hung. 54, 2001

'\

447

YAHYAPA~A.OGLU MEHMED PASHA'S EVKAF IN BELGRADE

some 50 different employees. It is pointless to list all of them the composition of

every larger vakifbeing more or less similar and quite well known from the numer
ous published vakifnames, Their salaries were rather high for the middle of the 16th
century. That of the muderris was the highest: 50 akr.;es a day (18,000 a year). There
follow the miitevelli with 35 akr.;es (12,600); two imams and a hatib with 20 akr.;es
(7,200); a va'iz, a mii 'ezzin and a cabi of mukata 'as (revenue collector) with 15 akr,;es
(5,400); two kayyims, a cabi for the villages and a hatib of the musalla with 10 akr.;es
(3,600), etc, Dani~mends were paid 2 akr.;es a day. Some employees had more than
one responsibility (e.g. that of a ciizhan, paid 3 akr.;es a day, was usually supplemen
tary), which added to their incomes. Besides all being given free meals, they enjoyed
many other privileges?3 An analysis of the staffs social structure should take into
account the fact that the best-paid of the 'ulema were the least dependent on the vakif
economically. They were engaged in trade, rented out shops, parcels of land, vine
yards and gardens, or they lent money at a rate of interest, etc. For instance, in addi
tion to his duty of a cabi (revenue collector), Kadt-zade Mustafa <;elebi held at least
two shops in the city, as well as six (36-day-work) fields, and two vineyards in the
vakifvillages of Mirijevo and Visnjica. He also gave interest-bearing loans. His ex
perience as the caM of one of the largest Belgrade evkafs recommended him for simi
lar affairs - many people used to authorise him to effect their unsettled claims in cash
and kind from the debtors throughout the sancak of Semendire. 24
The total annual expenditures of the evkaf, according to the 1572 data (icmal
defieri of the sancak of Semendire), were 154,360 akr,;es and exceeded the income
from Belgrade and four villages in the nahiye of Belgrade by some 35,000 akr.;es: 25
Expenditure ofYahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pasha's evkaf
in Belgrade

1572

For the salaries of the miiderris and dani~mends

27,360

------------~----~---

For the salaries of people serving in the mosque, tUrbe, and kitchen

49,000

!--

For food and other kitchen necessities

For the repair of the karvansaray, firewood, and other expenses
Total expenditure

66,000

- f - - - - - - -

12,000
154,360

23 Fotic (I991b, pp. 57-73); Fotic (1992, pp. 153-155); BBA, Cevdet, Evkaf, 3.751, 4.555,
6.445,13.616,29.889,31.881,33.344; BBA, ibn iil-Emin, Ensab, 262, BBA, ibn iil-Emin, Evkaf,
4,292,4.664; BBA, Ali Emiri, IV. Mehmed, 3.781, 4.113, 4.115-4.118, 4.207; Nationalbibliothek,
Wien, Mxt 158, photo 25.
24 Fotic (1992, pp. 155); Fotic (199Ia, pp. 109-110); BUB, MS. 3574, 15,35,41,43,51,
64,67,73,77,84,86,88,95,102,111-113,214,218; BBA, Cevdet, Evkaf, 6.445, 33.344. Similar
inferences have been drawn from the analysis of the population structure in 17th-century Bursa
(Gerber 1988. pp. 166-167).
25 Nationalbibliothek, Wien, Mxt 158, photos 24-25; Fotic (1992, pp. 155-156).

Acta Orient. litmg. 54, 2001

448

A. FOTIe

1572

ness,
Borca

From the mukata'a of the karvansaray

45,000

ak~es

From the mukata 'as of shops

12,684

Income of Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pasha's evkafin Belgrade

From the mukata 'as of the land

3,300

Income from the village of Miriyeva

17,564

! Income from the village of Gome islan!;e

9,591

Income from the village of Dolne islan!;e

7,997

Income from the village of Vi~ni!;e

Total income

23,355
119,491

Having in mind the number of staff necessary for the functioning of such
a large vakif, the sum that went to the persons servicing the mosque, tiirbe, and 'ima
ret seems to be rather low. The income yielded by the very city of Belgrade consid
erably increased with the building, or purchase, of the C;ukur han, probably sometime
in the 17th century, Anyway, the difference between the income from the nahiye of
Belgrade and the total expenses was met by the income from the vakif villages across
the Danube, from 1552 within the nahiye ofPancevo/Pan!;ova (sancakofTemesvar),
and from the estates in the sancak of Pozega,
The evkaf villages in the nahiye of Belgrade constituted a territorial whole
bordering on the city limits (slmr). As they belonged to the vakzf, the villages of
MirijevolMiriyeva, Gomje Stance/Gome tslan!;e and Donje SlancelDolne tslan!;e, as
well as VisnjicalVi~ni!;e (which was granted the rank of a village only after the for
mation of the miilkname), were linked economically and in other ways with Belgrade
and its inhabitants. That fact inevitably makes them a topic of interest for the study of
the past of Ottoman Belgrade. Regrettably, despite the existence of interesting docu
ments referring to their past, we cannot pay them much attention here. 26
Although across the Danube and administratively linked with the sancak of
Temesvar, the spacious territory of the evkaf was functionally linked with Belgrade.
It constituted a geographical whole between the rivers Danube and TamiSlTlml~,
called "The Island of Ovca with BorcalCezire-i Of~a me 'a Bor~a". Despite its large

26 Ibidem; Sabanovic (1964, pp. 21, 25, 70, 239, 395-397, 529-533); Halasi-Kun (1987,
pp. 125-127). The evkafvillages, analysed in my M.A. thesis (Fotic 1991c, pp. 58-67), will be
discussed in a separate paper. The registration of the entire semmame of the villages of Mehmed
Pasha's evkaf, besides the villages of Bor~a and Of~a in the nahiye of Pancevo/Pan~ova (sancak of
Temesvar), does not at all mean that the nahiye extended across the Danube, as T. Halasi-Kun has
assumed (Halasi-Kun 1987, pp. 126-127). There is no doubt that Mirijevo, Gomje Siance, Donje
stance and Visnjica always belonged to the nahiye of Belgrade, sancak of Semendire (Sabanovic
1964, pp. 21, 25, 70, 239, 395--397, 529-533); Nationalbibliothek, Wien, Mxt 158, photos 24-25;
BBA, TD 517, 217 -219, and other sources).

Acta Orient. Hung. 54. 2001

were
other
The

the
kat:

year I

BBA.'

YAHYAPASA.OGLU MEHMED PASHA'S EVKAF IN BELGRADE

1572
5,000
2.684

449

ness, the swampy soil did not permit more than two settlements to develop: Ovea and
Borea. The latter brought rather small income to the vakif: a little more than 5,100
akfes in 1554.27
What generated income in the sancak of Pozega, according to the 1579 data,
were the leasing out of 92 shops (75 in 1551), the mills both in Pozega itself and in
other places, and three fiftliks (in the kazas of Pozega, BrOO, and Gorjan/Goryan).
The annual income yielded by the fiftliks and mills amounted to no more than 650
akfes, while the renting out of shops must have brought an incomparably larger
amount of money?8 If some shops were leased out at usual periodic rent (icare-i
mil'eccele) of Yz-l akfe a day, that would make 16,560 to 33,120 akfes a year, not
including the amount paid on concluding a lease (icare-i mu.kccele) .

...
The beginning of the war between the Ottomans and the Holy League in 1683 marked
the beginning of the decline of Yahyapasa-zade Gazi Mehmed Pasha's Belgrade ev
kaf In 1684/85 the Ottomans were expelled from the Pozega region hitherto bringing
a considerable part of the 'jmaret vakfi's income. In 1688-1690, when Belgrade was
bombed and set on fire, many vakif buildings were either entirely destroyed or con
siderably damaged. During the twenty years of their rule over Belgrade (1717-1739),
the Austrians did their best to annihilate any sign of Islamic origin on material monu
ments. They rearranged the buildings and changed their purpose completely. It should
not be doubted that the same fate befell the complex of the 'jmaret vakfi. When the
Ottomans regained Belgrade, it was themselves that made it impossible for this large
mlnJ to recover. In 1741 the Sultan annulled all the vakif lands in the sancak of
Semendire, except those belonging to Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and YahyapaSa-oglu
Bali bey. Deprived even of its villages round Belgrade, the 'jmOl'et vakfi was doomed
to ruin. After 1739 there only occur references to the mosque. All that the state did
for the vakif amounted to a partial renovation of the mosque and the transference of a
part of the revenue collected by the Belgrade customs. A few years later the mosque
was completely renovated by the muhafiz of Belgrade, Vizier Yahya Pasha Hatib
zade, who also assumed the responsibility to cover the salaries of a number of its of
ficials and servants. From that time the mosque officially had two names ('jmaret
cami 'j and Yahya Pasha's cami'). The use of either of them depended on the source
from which a given employee received his pay-packet. Three drawings of the mosque
from about 1870 have survived. Their comparison with EvJiya Gelebi's description
shows that Yahya Pasha's mosque was not at all similar to earlier, Mehmed Pasha's
building. The last reference to the mosque, by then already tom down, falls in the
year 1878. Although the 'jmaret vakfi had actually been long gone by 1904, the mu

27 Halasi-Kun (1987, pp. 108-109,111,125-127,151 map); Tomovic (1997, pp. 91-92);

BBA, TD 290, p. 288.
28 Cviko (1982-1983, pp. 275, 278); Cviko (I 991 ?); Moacanin (1994, p. 175).

Aero Orient. Hung. 54, 2001

J'

450

A. FOTIC

tevellis were still receiving their salaries, but from the evkaJ of Yahya Pasha (Meh
med Pasha's father) in SkopjelOskup and the eVkaf of Ka~amkh Mehmed Pasha. 29
A study of the composition and functioning of Yahyapa~a-oglu Mehmed Pa
sha's eVkafin Belgrade certainly confirms the assumption about a thought-out Otto
man policy of urban development. All the data indicate a prosperous economic and
intellectual life of Ottoman Belgrade during a period as poorly investigated as that
between 1521 and 1688. At the same time, the topic inspires consideration of the ac
tivity and influence of famous and long-standing border families from the tum of the
15th and 16th centuries throughout the Balkans and Hungary. The Yahyapa~a-zade
family left a deep imprint due to their military accomplishments, their years-long
administration of different sancaks, and their numerous endowments (Skopje, Saraje
vo, Belgrade, Semendire, Pozarevac, Pozega, Valjevo, Yagodina, Buda, a few places
in Bulgaria, etc.).
References
Baltacl, C. (1976): XV--XVI. ASlrlarda Osmanll Medreseleri. Te~kUat. Tarih. istanbul.
Barkan, O. L. Ayverdi, E. H. (1970): istanbul Vakiflari Tahrir Detteri. 953 (1546) Tarihli, istan
bul.
Barta, G. (1994): A Forgotten Theatre of War 1526~1528 (Historical Events Preceding the Otto
man-Hungarian Alliance of 1528). In: Hungarian-Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Re
lations in the Age of Suleyman the Magnificent. Ed. by G. David and P. Fodor, Budapest,
pp.93-130.
BBA: Ba~bakanlik Ar~ivi (Istanbul): TO: Tapu Defied; Ali Emiri Tasnifi, IV. Mehmed; Cevdet
Tasnifi, Evkaf; ibn ii1-Emin Tasnifi, Ensab, Evkaf; K. Kepeci Tasnifi.
Bojanic, D. (1985): Pozarevac u XVI veku i Bali-beg Jahjapa~ic. lstorijski casopis Vol. XXXII,
pp.49-77.
BUB; Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna.
Clayer, N. (1994): Mystiques. Etat & Societe. Les Halvetis dans l'aire balkanique de lafin du XVe
siecie a nosjours. Leiden, E. J. Brill.
Cviko, F. (1982-1983); Opsimi defier za sandzak Pozegu iz 1579. godine. Prilozi za orijentalnu
jilologiju Vol. 32-33, pp. 267-287.
Cviko, F. (1984): 0 najstarijem popisu Pozeskog sandzaka. Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju Vol. 34,
pp.129-137.
Cviko, F. (1991 ?): 0 nekim vakufima u Siavoniji iz XVI stoIjeca. (A text prepared for the Anali
Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke Vol. XV-XVI, but it is unknown to me whether it was
published.)
David, G. (1992): Incomes and Possessions of the Beglerbegis of Buda in the Sixteenth Century.
In: Soliman Ie MagniJique et son temps. Actes du Colloque de Paris. Galeries Nationales
du Grand Palais 7-10 mars 1990. Publie par G. Veinstein. Paris, pp. 385-398.
David, G. (2000): An Ottoman Military Career on the Hungarian Borders: Kaslm Voyvoda, Bey,
and Pasha. In: Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe. The Military Con
Jines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest. Ed. by G. David and P. Fodor, Leiden, E. J. Brill,
pp.265-297.

\11

Si

29 Trickovic (1973, pp. 77-82); Trickovic (1970, p. 185); Nikic (1958, pp. 153, 176-177);
Popovic (19502, p. 95); Kanuni ifermani (1990, p. 448).

Acta Orient, Hung. 54. 2001

'\iI

,,'
.."I

YAHYAPA~A-OGLUMEHMED PASHA'S EVKAFIN BELGRADE

451

Djuric-Zamo10, D. (1977): Beograd kao oriJentalna varos pod Turcima 1521~1867. Beograd.
Elezovic, G. (1937): Jahja-pab. Jugoslovenski istoriski casopis Vol. III, Nos 1-4, pp. 161-178.
Elezovic, G. (l940): Turski spomenici. Vol. I, T. I, 1348-1520, Beograd, SAND.
El'liya C;elebi (1315): Evliya C;:elebi Seyahiitniimesi. Vol. V. istanbul.
E\'lija Celebi (1967): Putopis. Odlomci 0 jugoslovenskim zemljama. Preveo, uvod i komentar napi
sao H. Sabanovic. Sarajevo.
Fekete, L. (1955): Gul-Baba et Ie bektiisfderk'iih de Buda. AOHVol. IV, Nos 1-3, pp. 1-18.
Fekete, L. (1976): Buda and Pest under Turkish Rule. Budapest (Studia Turco-Hungarica III).
Fodor, P. (2000): Ottoman Policy Towards Hungary, 1520-1541. In: Fodor, P.: In Quest of the
Golden Apple. Imperial Ideology, Politics, and Military Administration in the Ottoman
Empire. Istanbul, The Isis Press, pp. 105-169.
Fotic, A. (l99Ia): Devet priloga istoriji turskog Beograda. Godisnjak grada Beograda Vol.
XXXVIII, pp. 103-112.
Fotic, A. (199Ib): Defieri fodula beogradskog imareta Mehmed-pase Jahjapasica. Balcanica Vol.
XXII, pp. 57-74.
Fotic, A. (199Ic): Belgrade in the 17th Century According to the Ottoman Documents of Conte
Marsili). Unpublished MA thesis. Belgrade University, Faculty of Philosophy, Department
of History.
Fotic, A. (1992): Uloga vakufa u razvoju orijentalnog grada: beogradski vakuf Mehmed pase Jab
japasica. In: Socijalna struktura srpskih gradskih naselja (XII-XVIII vek). Smederevo-
Beograd, pp. 149-159.
Gerber, H. (1988): Economy and SOCiety in an Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600-1700. Jerusalem, The
Hebrew University.
Halasi-Kun, T. (\ 987): Keve County, and the Ottoman Panvova Nahiyesi. In: Between the Danube
and the Caucasus. A Collection of Papers Concerning Oriental Sources on the History of
the Peoples ofCentra I and South-Eastern Europe. Ed. by G. Kara. Budapest, pp. 105-151.
Handiic, A. (I975): 0 formiranju nekih gradskih naselja u Bosni u XVI stoljeeu. Prilozi za ori
jentalnu filologiju Vol. XXV, pp. 133 -168.
Handiic, A. (1983): Vakuf kao nosilac odredenih driavnih i drustvenih funkcija u Osmanskom
Carstvu. Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke Vol. IX-X, pp. 113 -120.
Istorija Beograda (1974): Istorija Beograda. Vol. I, Beograd, SAND, pp. 323-461 (chapters writ
ten by H. Sabanovic and R. Samardiic).
Istorija naroda Jugoslavije (1960): Istorija naroda JugoslaviJe. Vol. II, Bcograd.
KaleSi, H. - Mehmedovski, M. (1958): Tri vakufnami na Kacanikli Mehmed-pasa. Skopje.
Kallulli ifermalli (1990); Kanulli j fermani za Makedollija, priredio A. Matkovski, Skopje.
Kunt, I. M. (l983): The Sultall Servants. The Transformatioll of Ottoman Provincial Government
1550~1560. New York, Columbia University Press.
Kunt, i. M. (1994): The Waqf as an Instrument of Public Policy: Notes on the Kopriilii Family
Endowments. In: Studies in Ottomall History in Honour ofProfessor V. L. Menage. Ed. by
C. Heywood and C. Imber. Istanbul, The Isis Press, pp. 189-198.
Moacanin, N. (1994); Hac) Mehmed Aga ofPozega, God's Special Protege (ca. 1490-ca. 1580).
In: HUlIgarian-Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations ill the Age of SiUeyman the
Magnificent. Ed. by O. David and P. Fodor. Budapest, pp. 171-181.
Miihimme Defieri 90 (1993); Miihimme Defieri 90. Red. ve Sad. M. Tulum. Hazlrlayanlar N. Aykut,
i. Bostan, F. Emecen, Y. Halavog1u, M. ip~irli, i. Miroglu, A. Ozcan, i. $ahin. istanbul,
TDA Vakfl.
Nationalbibliothek: Nationalbibliothek, Wien.
Nikic, Lj. (1958); mamije u Beogradu. Godislljak grada Beograda Vol. V, pp. 151-206.
Acta Orient. Hung. 54, 2001

452

A. FOTle

Ozergin, M. K. (1974): Eski bir Ruznilme'ye gore istanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri. iCEF Tarih
Enstitusii Dergisi Vol. 4-5, pp. 263~290.
Pegevi Tarihi (1968-1969): Peqevi Tarihi. Vol. I-H. (ev. M. Uraz. istanbul.
Popovic, D. (1935): Gradja za istoriju Beograda od 1711-1739. god. Spomenik Vol. LXXVIfI.
Popovic, S. L. (1950 2): Putovanje po Novoj Srbiji (1878 i 1880). Beograd, SKZ.
Romer, C. (1989): Einige Urkunden zur Militarverwaltung Ungams zur Zeit Siileymans des Prach
tigen. AOHVol. XLIII, No. I, pp. 23-80.
Romer, C. (1994): On Some lja~~ Estates Illegally Claimed by Arslan Pasa, Beglerbegi of Buda.
In: Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Menage. Ed. by C. Heywood
and C. Imber. Istanbul, The Isis Press, pp. 297- 318.
Sabanovic, H. (1964): Turski izvori za is/oriju Beograda, Vol. I, T. I, Katastarski popisl Beograda
iokoline 1476-1566. Beograd.
Sabanovic, H. (1970): Urbani razvitak Beograda od 1521. do 1688. godine. Godlsnjak grada Beo
grada Vol. XVII, pp. 5-40.
Sabanovic, H. (1973): Knjlievnost muslimana BiH na orijentalnim jezicima. Sarajevo.
Silahdar (1928): Silahdar Fmdlkhh Mehmed Aga. Silahdar Tarihi. Vol. I-H. istanbul.
Stojanovic, Lj. (1929-1934): Stare srpske povelje i pisma. Vol. I, T. 1-2, Beograd-Sremski Kar
lovci.
Siireyya, M. (1308-1311): Sicill-I 'Osmani. Vol. 1- IV, istanbul.
Tahir, M. (1972): Osmanll Mi1elliflerl. Vol. I-II. istanbul.
Tomovic, G. (1997): Poceci naseljavanja Ovce. GodiSnjak grada Beograda Vol. XLIV, pp. 89--93.
Trickovic, R. (1970): Polozaj Beograda u vojno-upravnom sistemu Smederevskog sandzaka posle
Beogradskog mira 1739. god. In: Oslobodjenje gradova U Srbijl od Turaka 1862-1867.
Beograd, SANU, pp. 183~192.
Trickovic, R. (1973): Beogradska tvrdjava i varos 1739-1789. godine. Godlsnjak grada Beograda
Vol. XX, pp. 49-88.
Trickovic, R. (J 974): Islamske skole u nasim zemljama. In: Istorija skola i obrazovanja kod Srba.
Beograd, pp. 241-261.
Ugur, A. (1985): The Ottoman 'Ulemii In the Mid-17th Centul)'. An Analysis ofthe Vakii 'i'i1l-Fuza
la ofMehmed $eyhi Ef. Berlin.
Veselinovic, R. L. (1955): Neka pitanja iz proslosti Beograda XVI-XIX veka. GodiSnjak Mu::eja
grada Beograda Vol. II, pp. 99-\\6.
Zdralovic, M. (1988): Bosansko-hercegovacki prepisivaCi djela u arabickim rokopisima. Vol. I - II.
Sarajevo.
"

Acta Orient. Hung. 54, 2001